Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Keeping 9/11 Under Wraps

CounterPunch (for the most part a good publication) has published another 9/11 truth movement debunking article. Leaving aside the many, many problems in this cheap hit piece (I’m sure others will deal with them), I would here like to address the statement that it would be impossible to cover up the crime because of the many people involved. Specifically, the author, Alex Doherty, writes, “The theorists are at a loss to explain how the Bush administration succeeded in covering up an operation that would have required the involvement of thousands of people...”

In fact, the theorists are not at a loss to explain this. It just appears that Mr. Doherty, in his gross ignorance, hasn’t taken the trouble to read any of the explanations (the fact that these debunkers never address any of the substantive, damning evidence is testimony enough that they are mere cheap apologists for the perpetrators of this monstrous crime).

So, how could the perpetrators keep this under wraps? It was indeed a large-scale, elaborate operation that must have required the cooperation of certainly more than a handful of people. I’m sure that, in one way or another, thousands of people did play a part. But let’s consider this more closely.

Even if 9/11 did involve a cast of thousands, it’s not hard to imagine how they could be kept silent. Threats against their lives and those of their loved ones is a good start. It’s well known that the neocons are highly vindictive. Would you want to cross their path? Even people who want to talk could be deterred by death threats. “Do you love your wife and kids? Then keep your lip buttoned.” Good deterrent, I’d say. Of course I don’t know that such threats have been made. Readers will just have to consider the possibility themselves. Nevertheless, this is one possibility.

Payola is another good means (I wonder if some of the Pentagon’s “missing” $2.3 trillion went into the pockets of those who cooperated). Why would anyone squeal? If they participated and got a handsome payoff, they’d take the money and shut up. After all, if they squealed, they’d be opening themselves up to charges of high treason and first-degree mass murder, not to mention taking a huge payoff to boot. Again, not conducive to squealing, wouldn’t you say? Would you talk if you were in that position?

Further, many of the people tasked with jobs that helped pull off 9/11 likely had no idea of their role in the atrocity. They were just following orders. Probably many people who “helped” even now do not realize that they themselves helped murder thousands of their own countrymen. Some no doubt suspect that they were forced into being accomplices, but can’t prove it. And besides, they must be afraid of what would happen to them if they expressed their suspicions publicly. Anyone who threatened to expose the perpetrators might soon end up being another Jose Padilla, with some kind of trumped-up terrorist charges filed against them, and ending up in solitary confinement.

Sure, this is all speculation. I really don’t know how the accomplices are kept silent. There are probably lip-buttoning methods that I have not even dreamed of. But the position that it would be impossible to cover up the operation is clearly a specious argument. That should be evident from the limited repertory of silencing techniques I have posited here.